Experiential Avoidance: the unwillingness to experience

undesirable feelings and its impact to psychological well-

being.

Chapter I

Introduction

Background of the Study

When we experience unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or sensations,

there is often a natural tendency to want to avoid these uncomfortable

experiences, sometimes, at all costs. This is called experiential avoidance

(Crane, R. 2009). Experiential avoidance is a process involving excessive

negative evaluations of unwanted private thoughts, feelings, and sensations,

an unwillingness to experience these private events, and deliberate efforts to

control or escape from them (Hayes, 1994; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999).

We all have this natural survival instinct embedded within us that creates our

aversive reaction to unpleasant or uncomfortable events. This hardwired

instinct tells us to avoid things that are unpleasant, because they are likely

to be dangerous. However, this instinct we have/use affects our internal

processes as well, disconnecting the self from thoughts, emotions, and

physical sensations (Crane, R. 2009).

1
 All human beings will have moments of pain and suffering. It includes

experiencing the full spectrum of human emotions, including intense,

potentially disturbing states such as panic attacks, and a range of evaluative

thoughts including self-doubts about the ability to perform in a particular

situation and feeling that one should be better compared with the present

self. And with this, one need to do something to try to overcome the situation

and this would be taking action toward valued goals. But this action requires

contact with a full range of emotional content, some of it quite painful. This is

where experiential avoidance tends to get people into trouble (T.B. Kashdan

et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2006). In this system, undesired

psychological content must be managed first in order to do what is important

in life. Here the struggle with, and avoidance of, unwanted private events

predominates, and the ability to engaged in valued directions is disrupted

(Hayes et al., 1999). As a consequence, effort and progress toward

personally meaningful goals is sacrificed because of an unwillingness to

experience and let go of the struggle with unwanted private events trouble

(T.B. Kashdan et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2006). With this

conceptualization (Eifert & Forsyth, 2005; Hayes et al., 1999), experiential

avoidance is defined as a core toxic diathesis underlying several other

psychological vulnerabilities.

EA inhibits the approach-oriented behaviours necessary to seek out

and enjoy valued experiences (Hayes et al., 1999) that may contribute to a

sense of meaning in life, which is widely considered a component of ones

2
broader subjective well-being (e.g., Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008). Indeed,

EA has been associated with decreased global (Kashdan & Breen, 2007) and

daily (Kashdan et al., 2006) meaning in life. Because individuals who use EA

are less able to be in contact with and enjoy daily events, and tend to

experience more daily negative affect and less daily positive affect, they may

perceive their daily lives as less meaningful.

The paradox of experiential avoidance is that attempting to hide or

inhibit unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations serves to

increase the frequency and distress of these same experiences (Gross,

1998a, 2002; Wegner, 1994) and a sense that one is being inauthentic or

disconnected from oneself (John & Gross, 2004). Experiential avoidance can

work in a short term but doesnt work in a long-term period. It becomes a

disordered process when it is applied rigidly and inflexibly such that

enormous time, effort, and energy is devoted to managing, controlling, or

struggling with unwanted private events (Forsyth, Eifert, & Barrios, in press;

Hayes et al., 1999). This struggle, in turn, gets in the way of movement

toward valued goals, diminishes contact with present experiences, and thus

yields impairment in functioning. The unwillingness to remain in contact with

negatively evaluated private events, and chronic attempts to alter the form

of these events or contexts in which they arise, are proposed to be a

stronger contributor to psychopathology than the content (e.g., intensity,

frequency, negative valence) of private psychological and emotional

experiences (Forsyth, Eifert, & Barrios, in press; Hayes et al., 1999).

3
 Hayes et al. (2004, 2006) and Kashdan et al. (2006) offer reviews

of findings that EA is significantly related to general as well as specific

measures of psychological symptoms and problem behaviors. For example,

EA correlates with measures of anxiety and depression, and increased

feelings of panic and perceived uncontrollability in response to an induction

of acute emotional distress (Feldner, Zvolensky, Eifert & Spira, 2003).

In clinical and non-clinical samples, experiential avoidance is

strongly correlated with measures of general psychopathology (Hayes et al.,

2004) and specific measures of anxiety and depression (Forsyth, Parker, &

Finlay, 2003; Marx & Sloan, 2005; Roemer, Salters, Raffa, & Orsillo, 2005;

Tull, Gratz, Salters, & Roemer, 2004). In response to inductions of acute

emotional distress (via panicogenic CO2 inhalation and hyperventilation

challenges), healthy individuals endorsing greater experiential avoidance

reported more panic symptoms and perceived uncontrollability (Feldner,

Zvolensky, Eifert, & Spira, 2003), even after accounting for other risk factors

such as anxiety sensitivity (Karekla, Forsyth, & Kelly, 2004; Spira, Zvolensky,

Eifert, & Feldner, 2004). These studies demonstrate that experiential

avoidance amplifies anxiety symptomatology in individuals with no history of

anxiety-related disorders. Thus, there is evidence that experiential avoidance

is not merely a concomitant or consequence of anxiety-related pathology,

rather it is a psychological vulnerability for anxiety pathology.

4
 Anxiety is an emotion characterized by feelings of tension, worried

thoughts and physical changes like increased blood pressure. People with

anxiety disorders usually have recurring intrusive thoughts or concerns. They

may avoid certain situations out of worry (Encyclopedia of Psychology). The

worry experienced by those with anxiety is distinguished by its persistence

and intensity, which is characteristically out of proportion for the present

situation. In contrast to worry arising from normal fear, related to the specific

behaviors of escape and avoidance, anxiety is the result of threats that are

perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable (Dennis, 2016 Timberline

Knolls). Anxiety is typically measured by two forms in the literature, one is

through the concept of trait anxiety and the other is through the concept of

anxiety sensitivity. We will focus on anxiety sensitivity since it is related to EA

and both has been viewed as a form of emotion regulation.

Anxiety sensitivity is the fear of anxiety related sensations based upon

the belief that these sensations lead to harmful consequences (Muris,

Meesters, van Melick, & Zwambag, 2001). These consequences can be

related to physical illnesses, negative social evaluations and loss of ones

mental capacity (Reiss, Peterson, Gursky, & McNally, 1986). The higher the

anxiety sensitivity level in a person, the more likely it is that the person

interprets the anxiety symptoms as distressing and harmful and when

exposed to anxiety related sensations, their anxiety increases even more

when they notice the physical symptoms associated with the anxiety they

5
are experiencing and will perceive them as a sign of impending harm (Alex

Wai Ki Li, 2014) and this is where experiential avoidance comes in.

Anxiety sensitivity involves behavioral avoidance, whereas EA is a

rejection of the internal experience that contributes to an increase in

emotional distress (Gutirrez, Zarazaga, Damme, 2011). Evidence suggests a

strong positive association between anxiety sensitivity and experiential

avoidance (e.g., Berman, Wheaton, McGrath, & Abramowitz, 2010;Tull &

Gratz, 2008 ). Individuals experiencing bodily sensations to which they are

highly averse would seek immediate relief from such sensations through

both cognitive and behavioral avoidance. In addition, available literature

suggests that the impact of anxiety sensitivity on negative outcomes

depends on one's willingness to accept negative emotions which is the

experiential avoidance.

There are the five (5) negative evaluations that lead to experiential

avoidance:

1. Violation Social Norms

Our perceptions of our peers attitudes and behaviors have a great

influence on our own attitudes and behaviors. As a human being, we need

6
something that will guide and direct our behavior, to provide social

relationships and to make sense of understanding each other's actions, this

are norms. Norms provide order in the society, and often transmitted by non-

verbal behavior (dirty looks), they may be also transmitted through stories

and role-model behaviors.

Social norms are rules that a group uses for appropriate and

inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. They provide us with

an expected idea of how to behave in a practical social group or culture

(Mcleod,S.A.,2008). In psychology, social norm is the accepted behavior that

an individual is expected to conform in a particular group, community, or

culture. These norms are often serving as a useful purpose and create the

foundation of correct behaviors. In other words, social norms allow you to

expect the events that will occur in a particular setting. This allows you to

prepare yourself for a situation and reduces the amount of stress you would

feel leading up to a situation that you felt uncertain of what was expected.

From a sociological perspective, social norms are informal

understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society. Norms are

regarded to exist as collective representations of acceptable group conduct

as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct. They can be

viewed as cultural products (including values, customs, and traditions) which

represent individuals' basic knowledge of what others do and think that they

should do. These are some of the reasons why most people, most of the

7
time, conform to social norms. Behaviors which fulfill these norms are called

conformity.

Failure to stick to the rules can result in severe punishments, the most

feared of which is exclusion from the group. In other words, if group

members do not follow a norm, they become labeled as a deviant. In the

sociological literature, this can often lead to them being considered outcasts

of society (Lapinski, M.K., & Rimal, R.N., 2005)In psychology, an individual

who routinely disobeys group norms runs the risk of turning into the

"institutionalized deviant." Similar to the sociological definition,

institutionalized deviants may be judged by other group members for their

failure to adhere to norms (Appelbaun,R.P., Carr,D., Duneir, M., & Giddens,A.,

2009)

According to B.F Skinner, he states that operant conditioning plays a

role in the process of social norm. Operant conditioning is the increase that

an action will occur again by increasing the reinforced response. This process

is that of reward and punishment or trial and error. Hand in hand with

deviance, the consequences of ones behavior, whether positive or negative,

will determine the probability of reoccurrence as well as the push towards

regulating ones decisions in the future.

8
2. Expressing of desires outside moral convention

Violating of social norms is often a result of expressing desires outside

moral convention. Morality refers to a code of conduct, by which human

beings regulate their lives. In descriptive sense, it may be defined as a code

of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or individual or in

other words, it controls and regulates how people often behave. Conventions,

however, serve an important function by providing predictability and order to

social life. Without social conventions it would be impossible to organize

social institutions. Moral conventionalism may be described as a theory of

moral conduct, according to which the criteria for right and wrong (or good

and bad) conduct are based on general agreement or social convention. It

judges the rightness or wrongness of actions by their degree of compliance

with social norms or conventional standards of morality.

Moral conventionalism may vary in the strictness and consistency

with which it demands adherence to social norms or conventional standards

of morality. In some cases, it may be susceptible to criticism for its lack of

strictness and lack of consistency.

According to Hume's theory of the mind, the passions (what we today

would call emotions, feelings, and desires) are impressions rather than ideas

(original, vivid and lively perceptions that are not copied from other

perceptions). The direct passions, which include desire, aversion, hope, fear,

grief, and joy, are those that arise immediately from good or evil, from pain

9
or pleasure that we experience or think about in prospect (T 2.1.1.4, T

2.3.9.2); however he also groups with them some instincts of unknown

origin, such as the bodily appetites and the desires that good come to those

we love and harm to those we hate, which do not proceed from pain and

pleasure but produce them (T 2.3.9.7). The indirect passions, primarily pride,

humility (shame), love and hatred, are generated in a more complex way,

but still one involving either the thought or experience of pain or pleasure.

Intentional actions are caused by the direct passions (including the instincts).

Of the indirect passions, Hume says that pride, humility, love and hatred do

not directly cause action; it is not clear whether he thinks this true of all the

indirect passions. (STANFORD, 2010)

Hume argues, as well, that the causal necessity of human actions is

not only compatible with moral responsibility but requisite to it. To hold an

agent morally responsible for a bad action, it is not enough that the action be

morally reprehensible; we must impute the badness of the fleeting act to the

enduring agent. Not all harmful or forbidden actions incur blame for the

agent; those done by accident, for example, do not. It is only when, and

because, the action's cause is some enduring passion or trait of character in

the agent that she is to blame for it. (STANFORD, 2010)

According to Hume, intentional actions are the immediate product of

desires, in particular the direct desires, including the instincts. He does not

appear to allow that any other sort of mental state could, on its own, give

10
rise to an intentional action except by producing a desire, though he does

not argue for this. The motivating desires, in their turn, are produced in the

mind by specific causes.

3. Feedback on ones weaknesses

Our actions, whether intentional or not, give us our identity. It shapes

our identity, and in turn, our identity shapes our actions (Hoffman, 2016).

This is the reason why we need to really plan and think first before we act. If

not, people might give us the wrong impression, or give us a negative

feedback, which most of us dont like to experience.

According to Greenwald, Taylor & Brown (1988), humans maintain

unrealistically positive self-views that we have the tendency to ignore or

have difficulty accepting feedback that disconfirms with their view of

ourselves. We think of ourselves as generally above average (Alicke, Klotz,

Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995; Kruger & Dunning, 1999),

consistently report that we have more positive characteristics than negative

ones (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989), and view ourselves more

positively than do others (Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin, & Barton, 1980). With

the intent to minimize feedback on weakness and uphold their positive self-

11
view, people would find blame from extrinsic factors rather than intrinsic for

the failure.

As social psychology research suggests, when we encounter

threatening information about ourselves, we engage in self-protective

processes, ignoring, minimizing, or reconstructing the information to the

extent possible (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009; Sedikides & Alicke, 2012). Other

self-protective strategies include externalizing the causal attributions we

make about our failures, such as finding flaws in a test that we fail (Wyer &

Frey, 1983) or crediting an evaluators negative feedback to that persons

racism or sexism (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991). Freud (1920, 1966)

recognized the importance of avoidance of private experiences that people

would likely distance themselves to people who provide them with negative

feedback on their weakness and associate themselves with people who give

them positive feedback to maintain their positive self- view.

People actively seek to disconfirm others mistaken impressions of

them (Swann and Hill, 1982) and are more likely to seek social feedback if

they believe it will confirm their self-conceptions (Swann and Read, 1981a,

1981b). Because individuals have favorable self- reviews, they have the

tendency to seek feedback primarily when feedback is likely to be positive

(Brown, 1987). With the intent to eliminate a negative feedback, a person

would ask another person to confirm his self- conception. Further, a person

would probably say Im not asking for your opinion, I dont care, Its

12
none of your business, or Akala mo kung sinong matalino if they are given

negative feedbacks because it contradicts their self- conception.

4. Feedback to be given on weaknesses of another

People are also unwilling and sensitive when giving feedback

(Blumberg, 1972). When it is given, it is overwhelmingly likely to be positive

(Blumberg, 1972; Parducci, 1968; Tesser & Rosen, 1975). Evaluators who

must communicate negative feedback may mute it or put it in euphemistic

terms (Goffman, 1955), thus rendering it ambiguous. Individuals who have

favorable self-views, such strategies lead to a tendency to seek feedback

primarily when feedback is likely to be positive (Brown, 1987). Example of

this when a person who says that he cannot do it by himself will start

seeking and receiving feedback.

Another will be the harm principle which state that the sole end of

mankind is warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the

liberty of action in any number is self-protection and the only purpose for

which power can be rightfully exercised over any of the community is to

prevent harm from others but it has a limit which will be helping other

persons it allows that limit to prevent harm from others which can give

positive feedback thus it is acceptable by the society an example of this will

be mercy killing because it does not affect the other persons and it is done

with the consent of the family members.

5. Expression of opinion different from another

13
 People are also afraid of expressing their opinions different from

others because it may lead conflicts to their relationship with other people.

Not only the conflict they are afraid of but also they dont want to have

discomforting feelings. People often do not express their opinions to make

things go easily and they think that if they express their opinions it will only

complicate things.

According to Prof. Dr. Bea Strauss , some people suffer from conflict

phobia, which is a compulsion to avoid any and all conflict. For many,

avoiding conflict has become a way of life. Perhaps a person just agrees with

others because he/she simply prefer peace and quiet. This proved that many

people resort in avoiding of expressing their opinions.

In addition, The Spiral of Silence Theory of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann

explains why people are afraid of expressing their opinion. The Spiral of

Silence Theory states that people fear of separation or isolation from those

around them so they tend to keep their attitudes to themselves when they

think they are in the minority. Being a part of the minority, some people lose

their confidence and become silent or mute making them unable to express

their views because of the fear of isolation or the fear of being alone and fear

of being unsupported. Sometimes the minorities will choose to withdraw and

not express their opinion/s from public debates to secure themselves from

the majority which results to and explains why people who can speak out

14
/express their opinions have more vocal space in the society and less vocal

space for those who are silent.

The spiral model is an analogy used to visually describe the theory. The

end of the spiral refers to the number of people that are not publicly

expressing their opinions, due to the fear of isolation. An individual is more

likely to go down the spiral if his or her opinion does not conform to the

perceived majority opinion.

Psychological well-being and Experiential Avoidance

Psychological well-being refers to how people evaluate their lives.

According to Diener (1997), these evaluations may be in the form of

cognitions or in the form of affect. The cognitive part is an information based

appraisal of ones life that is when a person gives conscious evaluative

judgments about ones satisfaction with life as a whole. The affective part is

a hedonic evaluation guided by emotions and feelings such as frequency

with which people experience pleasant/unpleasant moods in reaction to their

lives. The assumption behind this is that most people evaluate their life as

either good or bad, so they are normally able to offer judgments. Further,

people invariably experience moods and emotions, which have a positive

effect or a negative effect. Thus, people have a level of subjective well-being

even if they do not often consciously think about it, and the psychological

15
system offers virtually a constant evaluation of what is happening to the

person.

Several studies have found strong positive relationships between

avoidance, emotion-focused self-control strategies, and psychological

distress (e.g., Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Folkman et al., 1986; Stanton &

Danoff-Burg et al., 2000; Stanton, Kirk, Cameron, & Danoff-Burg, 2000). The

use of emotional approach strategies, targeting the unwillingness to accept

and invalidate emotional responses to situations, have been associated with

psychological distress (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Cameron, & Ellis, 1994).

Experiential avoidance is strongly related with psychological distress

and impaired social outcomes. To some extent, strategic attempts to escape

stressful experiences to become independent from aversive events and

accompanying emotions or to inhibit the expression of emotions can be

considered component processes of experiential avoidance (Kashdan,

Barrios, Forsyt, Steger, 2006).

Behaviour Research and Therapy 44 (2006) about distress (e.g., fear of

fear), and efforts to escape private events as well as those circumstances

that evoked them in the past and may evoke them in the future. Private

events are negatively evaluated and avoided similar to actual external

threats. Whereas individuals lower in experiential avoidance enact more

mindful, non-judgmental perspectives toward private events, individuals high

16
in experiential avoidance are imprisoned by their inflexible negative self-

referential evaluations and detrimental over-reliance on expressive and

emotional suppression. In contrast, experiential avoidance is explicitly linked

to context and function (Kashdan, Barrios, Forsyt, Steger, 2006).

Experiential avoidance interferes with the ability to live in accord with

ones core values (Hayes et al., 1999; Wilson & Murrell, 2004). Regardless of

content, it is consistent with core values to express and accept ones

feelings, thoughts, and strivings. Evaluating, inhibiting, and attempting to

alter aspects of the self was proposed to disrupt psychological and social

well-being and not merely the exacerbation of negative experiences and

events.

Schmalz & Murrell found that individuals reporting greater

experiential avoidance reported diminished positive affective experiences,

life satisfaction, meaning in life, and less frequent positive (social,

achievement, hedonistic, virtuous) events.

Individuals chronically engaging in emotional avoidance diminished

hedonic functioning as a function of their (1) failure to accept that some

inner experiences will be less than desirable, (2) unwillingness to be in

contact with these experiences, and (3) efforts to alter their form, frequency,

or the factors that elicit them or may elicit them in the future (Forsyth et al.,

in press). Individuals who inflexibly engage in experiential avoidance have

17
less degrees of freedom to live in the present moment and take action

toward valued ends and goals. When faced with approach-avoidance

conflicts in the natural environment (e.g., a fun party that will involve

experiencing unwanted social anxiety), experiential avoidance appears to

obstruct approach-oriented actions and the subsequent potentiality of

pleasure and meaning. Over time, this inflexible, avoidant regulatory style

has considerable costs in terms of pathological outcomes and disrupted well-

being and flourishing (Schmalz & Murrell, 2004).

RESEARCH PARADIGM

Violation of social norms Psychological well-being

Feedback on others weakness

Opinion different from another

18
Problems and Hypothesis

1. What are the types of negative evaluations that would lead to experiential

avoidance?

Hypothesis: Violation of social norms, expression of desires outside morale

conventions, feedback on ones weaknesses, feedback given on weaknesses

of another and expression of opinion different from another.

2. Which of the negative evaluation that would lead to experiential

avoidance among middle adults

19
Hypothesis: Among the negative evaluation there will be a high level of

significance that will lead on the experiential avoidance among middle adults

3. What is the contribution of experiential avoidance to the psychological

well-being of the middle adults?

Hypothesis: The experiential avoidance has contribution to the

psychological well-being of the middle adults. The relationship between

experiential avoidance and psychological well-being of middle adults

provides the basis for the investigation into the predictive significance of the

experiential avoidance to the psychological well-being.

Chapter II

Methodology

This chapter will present how the study will be conducted. It includes here

the population and local, gathering of data, data gathering tool, treatment of

data and the research paradigm.

20
II.1 Population and Locale

The population of interest for the study is all middle adults residing in Baguio

City. There will be 300 participants, 150 males and 150 females, which age

are ranging from 41-64 years old.

II.2 Gathering of Data

Two questionnaires will be administered to each participant for data gathering. One

questionnaire will be measuring experiential avoidance and the other will be for

measuring psychological well-being. The researcher will collect the questionnaire

from the respondents after the allotted time for them to answer. The researcher will

then tally the responses of each participant in the questionnaire and apply the

appropriate statistical tool.

II.3 Data Gathering Tool

The first questionnaire (EAQ) will be measuring experiential avoidance. The

items are made and developed by the researchers to asses which aspect of

experiential avoidance(violation of social norms, expressions of desires

outside moral convention, feedback on one's weakness, feedback on

anothers weakness, opinion different from another's) is the most needed,

advantageous, and works best for middle aged adults. It is a 47-item

questionnaire where each of the 5 aspects of experiential avoidance has a

total of 8 points. The items are rated on a 4-point scale from (A) strongly

disagree (B) disagree (C) agree to (D) strongly agree. The second

21
questionnaire (PWQ) will be measuring the impact of experiential avoidance

to psychological well-being whereas the researcher adapted half of the items

from The Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (Warwick and

Edinburgh Universities, 2006) and the other half from the Acceptance and

Action questionnaire written by (Bond,F.W., Bunce and Hayes, S.C.,2003). It

is a 36-item inventory and the items are rated on a 4-point scale from (1)

always (2) often (3) sometimes to (4) never.

II.4 Treatment of Data

To evaluate the types of negative evaluation that would lead to experiential

avoidance among the middle adults, mean analysis will be used. For the

second problem, what negative evaluation would lead to experiential

avoidance among middle adults, mean analysis will also be used. Multiple

Regressions will be used to assess the contribution of experiential avoidance

to the psychological well-being of the middle adults.

References:

Anon.(n.d). Anxiety.Retrieved October 17,from

http://www.apa.org/topics/anxiety/

22
Anon.( 2014). What is Experiential Avoidance?.Retrieved September 20,from

http://www.thecareerpsychologist.com/what-is-experiential-avoidance/.

Gutirrez,A.M. ,Zarazaga,M.E. & Damme,S.V.(2011). The Role of Anxiety Sensitivity,

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=8366.

Hoffman,R.(2013). Shape Your Identity Or It Will Shape You.Retrieved September

Kashdana, T.B. et.Al. (2005). Experiential avoidance as a Generalized Psychological

Schenck,L.(2011). Experiential Avoidance: The Desire to Avoid Distress.Retrieved

http://www.mindfulnessmuse.com/acceptance-and-commitment-
therapy/experiential- avoidance-the-desire-to-avoid-distress.

Strauss,B.(2013).Conflict Phobia.Retrieved November 18,from

Taylor,S.E. & Brown,J.D.(1988). Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological

23